A Clinical Approach for Defining the Threshold between Low and Medium Anti-Cardiolipin Antibody Levels for QUANTA Flash Assays

Thrombosis in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Current Perspectives and Challenges in Laboratory Testing for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis hinges on identifying antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory testing encompasses lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM, which are included in the APS classification criteria. All the assays needed to detect aPL antibodies have methodological concerns. LA testing remains challenging due to its complexity and susceptibility to interference from anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI exhibit discrepancies between different assays. Antibody profiles aid in identifying the patients at risk for thrombosis through integrated interpretation of all positive aPL tests. Antibodies targeting domain I of β2-glycoprotein and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin antibodies have been evaluated for their role in thrombotic APS but are not yet included in the APS criteria. Detecting these antibodies may help patients with incomplete antibody profiles and stratify the risk of APS patients. The added diagnostic value of other methodologies and measurements of other APS-associated antibodies are inconsistent. This manuscript describes laboratory parameters useful in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS and will concentrate on the laboratory aspects, clinical significance of assays, and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS.

Establishment of ELISA-comparable moderate and high thresholds for anticardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein I chemiluminescent immunoassays according to the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria and evaluation of their diagnostic performance

OBJECTIVES

Recently published 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria emphasize the importance of quantifying single-, double-, and triple-antiphospholipid antibody positivity, distinguishing between IgG and IgM isotypes, and delineating moderate/high levels of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) antibodies. We aimed to establish clinically important moderate/high thresholds for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA), in particular QUANTA Flash, comparable to our in-house ELISAs used for over two decades, and to evaluate their diagnostic performance.

METHODS

QUANTA Flash CLIA and in-house ELISAs were used to measure aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM. Moderate thresholds for QUANTA Flash CLIA were determined using a non-parametric approach, calculating a 99th percentile on serum samples from 139 blood donors, and by mirroring the diagnostic performance of in-house ELISA on 159 patient samples.

RESULTS

Thresholds for QUANTA Flash CLIA achieving diagnostic performance equivalent to in-house ELISAs were 40 CU for moderate and 80 CU for high levels for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG and IgM. The assays showed good qualitative agreement, ranging from 76.10 to 91.19 %. When considering in-house ELISA results, 14 out of 80 (17.5 %) patients did not fulfill the new ACR/EULAR laboratory classification criteria, while 27 out of 80 (33.8 %) did not when considering QUANTA Flash CLIA results.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined moderate and high thresholds for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG and IgM detected with QUANTA Flash CLIA, aligning with long-established in-house ELISA thresholds. These thresholds are crucial for seamlessly integrating of the new 2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria into future observational clinical studies and trials.

Reporting and Establishment of Reference Intervals for Antiphospholipid Antibody Immunoassays: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program

CONTEXT.—

Misdiagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome can occur owing to the wide diversity of antiphospholipid (aPL) assays and a lack of international calibrators and harmonized reference intervals.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess laboratory practices regarding reporting and establishing reference intervals for immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) assays.

DESIGN.—

Supplemental questions related to reporting and establishing reference ranges for aPL assays were sent as part of the Antiphospholipid Antibody (ACL)-B 2019 College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing survey. The response rate and methods assessment details were determined, as well as qualitative and quantitative results for 3 test samples.

RESULTS.—

The number of participants reporting results for IgG aCL (n = 489), IgM aCL (n = 476), IgG anti-β2GPI (n = 354), and IgM anti-β2GPI (n = 331) varied by antibody type. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (up to 58.6%, 260 of 444) was the most used method; others included multiplex (from 18.9% to 23.9%), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (14.4%-17.6%), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (6.5%-9.0%). More respondents reported quantitative than qualitative results, and manufacturer cutoff ranges were used by 92.9% and 94.2% of respondents for aCL and anti-β2GPI, respectively. Despite variation in the use of semiquantitative ranges, qualitative negative/positive reporting of the test samples achieved almost 100% consensus. Qualitative consensus was met in contrast to the wide range of quantitative results obtained for each analyte across different kits.

CONCLUSIONS.—

ELISA remains the most used method for detecting aPL antibodies, with most laboratories reporting quantitative results based on manufacturers' suggested reference ranges. The categorization of quantitative results as equivocal, weak positive, or positive for responders using kits from the same manufacturer was variable.

Factor XI in Carriers of Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Elevated Levels Associated with Symptomatic Thrombotic Cases, While Low Levels Linked to Asymptomatic Cases

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a thromboinflammatory disorder caused by circulating antiphospholipid autoantibodies (aPL) and characterized by an increased risk of thrombotic events. The pathogenic mechanisms of these antibodies are complex and not fully understood, but disturbances in coagulation and fibrinolysis have been proposed to contribute to the thrombophilic state. This study aims to evaluate the role of an emerging hemostatic molecule, FXI, in the thrombotic risk of patients with aPL. Cross-sectional and observational study of 194 consecutive and unrelated cases with aPL recruited in a single center: 82 asymptomatic (AaPL) and 112 with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Clinical and epidemiological variables were collected. The profile of aPL was determined. Plasma FXI was evaluated by Western blotting and two coagulation assays (FXI:C). In cases with low FXI, molecular analysis of the F11 gene was performed. FXI:C levels were significantly higher in patients with APS than in patients with AaPL (122.8 ± 33.4 vs. 104.5 ± 27.5; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between symptomatic patients with aPL (APS) and high FXI (>150%) (OR = 11.57; 95% CI: 1.47-90.96; p = 0.020). In contrast, low FXI (<70%), mostly caused by inhibitors, was less frequent in the group of patients with APS compared to AaPL (OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.36-0.86; p = 0.032). This study suggests that FXI levels may play a causal role in the prothrombotic state induced by aPLs and holds the promise of complementary treatments in APS patients by targeting FXI.

Persistent Antiphospholipid Antibodies Are Not Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort of Hospitalised Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Objective

Patients with COVID-19 presented with an elevated prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) but the relationship with thrombosis is controversial. We analysed the persistence of aPL and their association with the clinical outcomes during hospitalisation in a cohort of COVID-19 patients.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective study including consecutive hospitalised patients with COVID-19 from Hospital Clínic of Barcelona between March 28th and April 22nd, 2020. Clinical outcomes during hospitalisation were thrombosis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and severe ventilatory failure. We determined both criteria and non-criteria aPL. Of note, in those patients with a positive result in the first determination, a second sample separated by at least 12 weeks was drawn to test the persistence of aPL.

Results

One hundred and fifty-eight patients (59.5% men) with a mean age of 61.4 ± 14.9 years old were included. Thrombosis was present in 28 (17.7%) patients, severe respiratory failure in 47 (30.5%), and 30 (18.9%) patients were admitted to ICU. Sixteen (28.6%) patients were positive for the criteria aPL at both determinations and only two (3.6%) of them suffered from thrombosis during hospitalisations (both had aCL IgG). However, they presented with low titers of aCL. Of note, aPL were not related to thrombosis, ICU admission or severe respiratory failure.

Conclusion

Although aPL were prevalent in our cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and they were persistent in half of tested patients, most determinations were at low titers and they were not related to worse clinical outcomes.

Solid Phase Assays for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are the laboratory criteria if persistently present over time. As aCL and aβ2GPI are two out of the three laboratory criteria, the detection of aPL by solid phase assays is an essential step in the diagnosis of APS. Advancement has been made to resolve some of the methodological challenges of aCL and aβ2GPI assays by providing guidelines how to measure aPL, as well as to gain a better understanding of their diagnostic role. However, solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show substantive inter-assay differences, resulting in disagreement concerning positive/negative results, but also differences in titer of antibodies. This hampers the semiquantitative classification into low-medium-high positivity. The non-criteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain one of β2GPI and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) have roles in confirming the risk in APS, and can be useful, especially in patients with incomplete antibody profiles.

Semiquantitative interpretation of anticardiolipin and antiβ2glycoprotein I antibodies measured with various analytical platforms: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms.

AIM

To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated.

RESULTS

Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM.

CONCLUSION

Use of 40/80 units as medium/high thresholds is acceptable for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG ELISA, but not for CLIA and MFI. Alternative semiquantitative thresholds for non-ELISA platforms can be determined by a clinical approach or by using monoclonal antibodies. Semiquantitative reporting of aPL IgM has less impact on increasing probability for APS.

Anti-Phospholipid Antibodies in COVID-19 Are Different From Those Detectable in the Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome

Background

Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a profound hypercoagulable state and often develop coagulopathy which leads to organ failure and death. Because of a prolonged activated partial-thromboplastin time (aPTT), a relationship with anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPLs) has been proposed, but results are controversial. Functional assays for aPL (i.e., lupus anticoagulant) can be influenced by concomitant anticoagulation and/or high levels of C reactive protein. The presence of anti-cardiolipin (aCL), anti-beta2-glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI), and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies was not investigated systematically. Epitope specificity of anti-β2GPI antibodies was not reported.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence and the clinical association of aPL in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients, and to characterize the epitope specificity of anti-β2GPI antibodies.

Methods

ELISA and chemiluminescence assays were used to test 122 sera of patients suffering from severe COVID-19. Of them, 16 displayed major thrombotic events.

Results

Anti-β2GPI IgG/IgA/IgM was the most frequent in 15.6/6.6/9.0% of patients, while aCL IgG/IgM was detected in 5.7/6.6% by ELISA. Comparable values were found by chemiluminescence. aPS/PT IgG/IgM were detectable in 2.5 and 9.8% by ELISA. No association between thrombosis and aPL was found. Reactivity against domain 1 and 4-5 of β2GPI was limited to 3/58 (5.2%) tested sera for each domain and did not correlate with aCL/anti-β2GPI nor with thrombosis.

Conclusions

aPL show a low prevalence in COVID-19 patients and are not associated with major thrombotic events. aPL in COVID-19 patients are mainly directed against β2GPI but display an epitope specificity different from antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome.

Anti-phospholipid antibodies in COVID-19 are different from those detectable in the anti-phospholipid syndrome

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a profound hypercoagulable state and often develop coagulopathy which leads to organ failure and death. Because of a prolonged activated partial-thromboplastin time (aPTT), a relationship with anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL) has been proposed, but results are controversial. Functional assays for aPL (i.e., lupus anticoagulant) can be influenced by concomitant anticoagulation and/or high levels of C reactive protein. The presence of anti-cardiolipin (aCL), anti-beta2-glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies was not investigated systematically. Epitope specificity of anti-β2GPI antibodies was not reported.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence and the clinical association of aPL in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients, and to characterize the epitope specificity of anti-β2GPI antibodies.

METHODS

ELISA and chemiluminescence assays were used to test 122 sera of patients suffering from severe COVID-19. Of them, 16 displayed major thrombotic events.

RESULTS

Anti-β2GPI IgG/IgA/IgM were the most frequent in 15.6/6.6/9.0% of patients, while aCL IgG/IgM were detected in 5.7/6.6% by ELISA. Comparable values were found by chemiluminescence. aPS/PT IgG/IgM were detectable in 2.5 and 9.8% by ELISA. No association between thrombosis and aPL was found. Reactivity against domain 1 and 4-5 of β2GPI was limited to 3/58 (5.2%) tested sera for each domain and did not correlate with aCL/anti-β2GPI nor with thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

aPL show a low prevalence in COVID-19 patients and are not associated with major thrombotic events. aPL in COVID-19 patients are mainly directed against β2GPI but display an epitope specificity different from antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome.

How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on the laboratory tests necessary for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). For the interpretation of the results of the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), understanding of all pitfalls and interferences is necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made on the standardization of aPL tests and current guidelines for detection of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) are useful tools. LAC measurement remains a complex procedure with many pitfalls and interference by anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show inter-assay differences. Measuring LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI allows making antibody profiles that help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients, but are not included in the current diagnostic criteria as no added value in the diagnosis of APS has been illustrated so far. The laboratory diagnosis of APS remains challenging. LAC, aCL, aβ2GPI IgG, and IgM should be performed to increase diagnostic efficacy, with an integrated interpretation of all results and an interpretative comment. A close interaction between clinical pathologists and clinicians is mandatory.

Two Novel Technologies for the Detection of Anti-cardiolipin and Anti β2-Glycoprotein Antibodies in the Real Life: Chemiluminescent in Comparison to the Addressable Laser Bead Immunoassays

In the present study, we evaluated two novel technologies, the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) QUANTA Flash on BIO-FLASH (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA) and the addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) on BioPlex™ 2200 (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) for the detection of anti-cardiolipin IgG/IgM (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein IgG/IgM (aβ2GPI) antibodies. The study was performed on 134 samples from consecutive patients (59 males and 75 females, mean age 54 ± 10 years) who consulted a rheumatologist because thrombosis and/or pregnancy complications were present or another immunological disease (Sjogren's syndrome, inflammatory arthritis). Fourteen patients of the total fulfilled 25the Sydney criteria for APS and for these patients previous results of aPLs were available. Sera were tested for aCL and aβ2GPI of IgG and IgM isotypes using CIA (BIO-FLASH) and ALBIA (BioPlex™ 2200). Overall agreement between CIA and ALBIA ranged from 88.1% (aCL IgG) to 97.8% (aβ2GPI IgG). Cohen's kappa coefficient ranged from 0.53 to 0.91, implying moderate to almost perfect agreement. Almost perfect agreement was found between BioPlex™ 2200 and BIO-FLASH aβ2GPI IgG and aCL IgM with Cohen's kappa of 0.91 and 0.88, respectively. On the other hand, moderate agreement was found between BioPlex™ 2200 and BIO-FLASH aCL IgG and β2GPI IgM assays with Cohen's kappa of 0.57 and 0.53, respectively. The two novel technologies look promising and comparable but further studies with larger cohorts are needed to contribute to the better understanding of the new aPLs antibodies assays performance.

Standardization of autoimmune testing – is it feasible?

Correct measurement of autoantibodies is essential for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases. However, due to the variability of autoantibody results and the heterogeneity of testing, wrong diagnosis is a reality. For this and more reasons, harmonization of testing is of the outmost importance. In this review we have summarized the factors contributing to this variability. The ways with which the working group on harmonization of autoantibody testing of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) has been trying to tackle the issue with the production and correct use of certified reference materials (CRMs), is discussed. Finally the advantages and the limitations of the use of CRMs are presented.